Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

U.S. Embassy In Baghdad Urges Americans To Leave Iraq; Source: U.S. Embassy In Baghdad Hit By Two Drones; Iran Vows Retaliation After U.S. Strikes On Key Oil Hub. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired March 14, 2026 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:00:32]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, everyone. Thank you for joining us. And welcome to CNN newsroom. I'm Kate Baldwin in New York.

Tonight, we have a stark warning coming from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad after it was struck for the second time since the start of the war with Iran. It's urging all Americans in Iraq to get out now. Smoke was seen rising from the embassy compound. You can see some images up there.

The security for -- security official says it was hit by two drones and Iran is now threatening to strike American linked oil and gas sites throughout the region. That's after President Trump ordered strikes on a key Iranian oil hub in the Persian Gulf. He says the United States deliberately hit only military targets there and warned Iran, though, that he would reconsider, that he would consider it restrained if it does not let ships pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

President Trump is also now urging, as you can see in social media posts throughout today, other countries to get involved and help secure that key shipping channel. He claims on social media that many nations will be sending warships to the area and that the United States will help, in his words, a lot. Let's get started this evening with CNN's Oren Liebermann, who's in Jerusalem for us.

Oren, Iran's revolutionary Guard is giving also a direct warning to the United States. What are they saying?

OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN JERUSALEM BUREAU CHIEF: So, this in a statement earlier today, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warning the United States to remove its industrial sites and its industrial facilities from the region and issuing a warning to anyone in or around those sites. And given what we've seen over the course of the last 15 days, it's hard to view this as an idle threat.

Iran has lashed out at countries across the Gulf, that includes Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates. And we've seen them attack U.S. facilities. As you pointed out, that video we saw of the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad with smoke coming out of it. Iraqi security officials told the Associated Press it was a helipad that had been damaged there. So, this is part of an escalating and intensifying conflict that we're seeing.

And of course, as you pointed out, it comes after The U.S. Struck Kharg Island. It's a small island off the coast of Iran in the Persian Gulf through which 90 percent of Iran's crude exports flow. Iran has said that if its energy infrastructure is attacked, it will set energy and oil infrastructure throughout the region quote, "on fire." Kate.

BOLDUAN: Oren, also, let's talk to me about the social media posts and what the president is saying today about calling on other countries to help secure the Strait of Hormuz. Who is he asking for help from now? What do we know about it and how are any of these countries responding?

LIEBERMANN: So, we're learning more about President Donald Trump's plan from a series of posts here. The question is, it's unclear what part of this is actual plans that are in the works and what countries have agreed or what of this is wishful thinking. The Strait of Hormuz is obviously one of the most important waterways in the world through which 20 percent of the world's crude oil flows and Iran has effectively been able to block it off.

The question and this was a question posed to the Pentagon at the press briefing just a day or two ago, was how do you open it up? And the Pentagon basically said they're working on it. It's a tactically complex situation. So, Trump now got on his social media and said that he is in talks with or hoping that China, the UK South Korea, Japan and others will send warships.

We've reached out to a number of these countries to see if they have any comment. The only one we've heard back from so far is the UK and they say they are in discussions about ways to secure shipping there. But at least right now, in the near term, Kate, it does not look like there's about to be a coalition of nations sending ships to open up the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran has effectively closed that and they control it, too. And this you can see, because India was able to send two tankers through there. So, Iran, even without a tremendous military presence there, has been able to control one of the world's most critical waterways.

BOLDUAN: Absolutely. Oren, thank you so much. Really appreciate. Oren Liebermann, Jerusalem for us tonight.

I want to bring in and talk about this with senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations Max Boot and retired Navy Captain Lawrence Brennan, who served on a USS aircraft carrier during the Iranian hostage crisis.

Gentlemen, thank you for being here, number one. Let's talk about what where Oren just ended with the latest on what is this has to be a central focus right now, which is what are you going to do about the Strait of Hormuz? Because that this war can't end until that is decided and dealt with. [20:05:15]

The way the president is now laying it out is that he's calling on nations to get involved. And I think Oren kind of characterizes it correct, Max, which is unclear if this is policy. What's actually in the works, and what is wishful thinking. But do you think the president can build a coalition that he didn't have before he entered the war? Now, entering a third week into the war.

MAX BOOT, SENIOR FELLOW, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: I'm skeptical because President Trump started this war with Iran without any obvious provocation, while ignoring and insulting our allies. Just a week ago, in fact, he was telling the British, get lost. We don't need your help. We've already won the war. And now he's turning around and desperately pleading for help because he's starting to understand that he's created a situation for which he has no obvious exit strategy.

He has sparked a massive energy crisis, the worst the world has ever seen. And he doesn't seem to know how to get out of it because there's no obvious military solution for reopening the Strait of Hormuz. And so, he's flailing around. He's claiming we've already won the war, and yet somehow the Iranians are still able to interdict the Strait.

He's threatening the Iranians, telling them we're going to demolish Kharg Island if they don't open it up. At the same time, he's desperately pleading for help. All of it basically signals desperation and a president who has gotten himself into a quagmire and doesn't know how to get out of it.

BOLDUAN: Captain, you know, the Strait of Hormuz.

CAPT. LAWRENCE BRENNAN (RET.), U.S. NAVY: Been there, done it.

BOLDUAN: How challenging is this? We can we keep talking about it as they need to reopen it there. The Iran's either is or threatening to start laying mines in it. What -- how challenging is this for the United States and others to fix, to re -- I mean, two Indian ships went through, so it's due. It's navigable, if you will. But how challenging is this?

BRENNAN: Tremendously challenging. Mine warfare is very much disfavored because it can damage any former ship, any number of people.

BOLDUAN: It's almost like a last resort type, righ?

BRENNAN: Oh, it is, yes. It's -- and I mean, there have been mines off New York harbor during World War II, and they can do tremendous amount of damage, intentionally or unintentionally, they can injure, kill the, you know, innocent fishermen, you know, out in rowboats, essentially. So, there's anything that can be done, but they would be a tremendous deterrent to entering and exiting the Strait of Hormuz. So, I think we need to make sure that we have some sort of assistance in minesweeping facilities, whether it's helicopters or minesweepers themselves. And we really don't have the assets that we need, particularly in this area. BOLDUAN: Yes. It's not ready to be done.

BRENNAN: It's not ready to be done for weeks, if not months.

BOLDUAN: Oh, that's quite a different timeline than --

BRENNAN: No. It takes a long time to get from the east coast to the west coast to the Indian Ocean and the Strait of Hormuz.

BOLDUAN: No, absolutely. But it's like reality running into. It's like this war is running square into the. Into reality at this point.

BRENNAN: Oh, it is. And I mean, it's a long way. And these ships, if they can do 20 knots, would be amazing, you know, so that's, you know, like 22, 23 miles an hour.

BOLDUAN: Let's talk about Kharg Island. Lindsey Graham posted on social media about this, and he wrote, "He who controls Kharg Island controls the destiny of this war." That's question one, if you agree. And two, he concluded the message with -- with Semper Fi, which implies maybe that Marines should -- shall be moving in or that he wants Marines to move in. What do you think of that, Captain?

BRENNAN: Second part, yes, I think Marines will be moved in.

BOLDUAN: You do?

BRENNAN: I'm not sure that's the right thing in the long term. You know, it's easy to get people in. It's really difficult to get them out. And boots on the ground, you know, to go back to the old cliche, cause lots of trouble, you know.

We don't want to have casualties. And we are. I mean, you know, the inevitability of operations and what we don't want to have are people who are captured. That -- that would be a nightmare under these circumstances. So, I'd be reluctant to put boots on the ground at this time. And until there's an exit strategy, I -- I don't know what to say.

BOLDUAN: Yes. Because the Pentagon. We do know, according to sources, Max, the Pentagon is deploying a Marine Rapid response Unit, typically comprised of 2,500 Marines and sailors, now on its way to the Middle East.

[20:10:04]

When the administration, if you just are watching, have, you know, passed its prologue. The administration has mobilized military assets in the past. The president has used it. What do you think that suggests here with what we're looking at with Kharg Island?

BOOT: Well, I think what the fact that we're moving a Marine Expeditionary Unit from Okinawa to the Middle east while we're also moving THAAD batteries from South Korea and other assets. What that suggests to me, Kate, is we started a war without being ready for the consequences. And clearly the military is scrambling because they don't have the assets they need in the Middle east to deal with this threat. And it's not clear to me that 2200 Marines are going to make that much of a difference.

What's stunning to me, Kate, is that all of this was completely predictable. This is something that our military has been war gaming for years. They've been warning about this.

General Caine, from all the reports I've read, warned President Trump about this that if you kill the supreme leader of Iran, that doesn't necessarily lead to the collapse of the regime. And if you start a war with Iran, they're going to interdict the Strait of Hormuz. That is -- that is the most obvious strategy in their playbook. They're also going to hit Gulf states, they're going to go after oil facilities, U.S. diplomatic compounds and lots of other things. None of this should be a surprise.

And yet from all the reporting we're reading, Kate, including from CNN, President Trump discounted those warnings. He assumed that as soon as he dropped a few bombs, the Iranians were going to surrender.

BOLDUAN: Yes. This is his reporting from the Wall Street Journal --

BOOT: This is a wishful thinking.

BOLDUAN: -- that he thought they were going to capitulate before it even got to this point. Captain, when it comes to Marines, I think the mobilizing Marines and here's some of the Wall Street Journal reporting, we're seeing that this -- where this came out just in the last day that he was given warnings and thought that Iran would capitulate before it even got to this point. But now we're to a place of moving in Marines.

What moving Marines in this rapid response unit gives commanders what options?

BRENNAN: Not sure it gives them any real options. And it puts people, puts the Marines in a position where they're going to be trapped if things go badly. You know, I had a grandfather who was a Marine in World War I and two uncles who were Marines and Korea and after. So, it's a problem.

And you know, we had a lot of Marines on board Nimitz. When I was there, we part of the air wing. We always had Marines run the brig and do all sorts of other things. They're wonderful people, but they're not enough for them. And that's part of the problem. And you know, if you start putting boots on the ground, where does it end?

You know, do you a -- the (inaudible) thousand people?

BOLDUAN: A critical question from day one. Is that in it remains right now?

BRENNAN: Yes. You said a thousand people or 100,000 people. And is it going to make a difference? And you know, what's the long-term objective of this? It's to get this flow of oil going through the Strait of Hormuz. And I'm not sure that this is the way we can do it. And you know, what

are the number of casualties, what's the number of millions, trillions of dollars that we're going to spend on this and how long are we going to be stuck here.

BOLDUAN: And what is the appetite in the stomach for it? That remains a huge question. It's great to see both. Thank you both. Really appreciate you coming in. Thank you so much.

BRENNAN: Thank you.

BOLDUAN: Coming up for us next, is the president underestimating the impact of the war on oil prices right now and what can he do to lower costs for Americans. Shark Tank, Kevin O'Leary joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:18:05]

BOLDUAN: As a war with Iran enters its third week now the surge in Global oil prices is sparking recession jitters and American consumers are paying more and more at the pump is just one example of where prices are headed. Gas prices have climbed 23 percent since the start of the war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're paying the price of the war.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He started this. He's the one should be paying for it. But he's it doesn't come out of his pocket. It comes out of our pocket.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have to suffer through a little bit of gas. Price is going up. Then -- then we have to suffer through it. And it's a small pain to take for the rest of the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: It is definitely the place that people feel at first, that's for sure. Joining us right now, Shark Tank, the man, the myth, the legend, Shark Tank judge and chairman of O'Leary Ventures, Kevin O'Leary. It's good to see you, Kevin. Thanks for coming in.

What is your assessment of how the Trump admin, how President Trump has handled the rise in oil prices so far, their messaging and their attempts to try to manage it?

KEVIN O'LEARy, CHAIRMAN, O'LEARY VENTURES: Well, there's no question that in planning this, insurgents, exploration, whatever you want to call it, that risk was always on the table. But history tells you something regardless of the administration. And here are the numbers, in order to really spike a recession, you need to keep oil prices between 90 and $100 for at least three months. You know that from decades past data. And so, this is obviously a reaction to the closing of the Strait of

Hormuz, and everybody knows that. But you really ask yourself, will this be the status in 90 days? And I'm guessing, and I think the administration's betting on it, that won't be the case because it's not just American pain. Oil is the only commodity on earth used in every single sector of everybody's economy everywhere, even adversaries, even the Russians, even the Chinese.

[20:20:03]

And so, it's in no one's interest to have this happen. And if you look at the Panama Canal or the Suez Canal, those problems were worked out a long time ago. And now what we need here is a coalition of countries to basically take control of that two-mile stretch. There's an area of that area in that canal that is basically two miles wide that all the ships pass through. And the Iranians are planning on mining that. Whether they've done it or not, we don't know.

But my point is, let's say that cost, and I know these sound like a lot of dollars, but let's say that costs 2 billion a month for multiple countries that are interested and everybody is to pay for that on an ongoing, perpetual basis so that no rogue country ever can take control of this very important waterway. That's a rounding error in the global economy, even the war itself.

And you know, I know I'm going to get criticized for saying this, let's say it costs 20 billion, 25 billion, 30 billion by the time it's over. Let's say it's 90 days, whatever. A rounding error in the trading value of our allies that we sell goods and services and energy and technology to. It's all a rounding error.

Now, I know that doesn't sound right in the context of how much money it is, but it really is a rounding error. And so, it's better to solve this problem once and for all. And I'm against war. I hate war. I hate civilians getting involved.

But this rogue nation for almost 60 years has been doing this every 12 months. At some point it's got to end. It happens to be this administration. I'm not pro or con Trump. I'm just saying finally someone's done something about it and they've got to fix it.

And in the end of the day, I believe what you will have is a coalition of the willing patrolling the Strait of Hormuz. And no rogue vessel or mine or missile or helicopter or plane will get near it because it'll get shot down. And that's going to cost a lot of money, but every cent.

BOLDUAN: The President has said on social media today that he's basically calling on and you can list out the nations that he's calling on in order to step up and help patrol and protect the Strait of Hormuz. One of them you mentioned is China. He says he's hoping China is going to send help. Iran has sent something like at least 11 million barrels of oil to China since the war began. What's the incentive for China to work with the United States at this point when it Strait of Hormuz? O'LEARY: Oil, can't run an economy without it. They need it, they have

to have it or they'll have the same problems everybody else is having, spiking prices in perpetuity. And so, we have a mechanism. Trump's not a big fan of the United Nations, but it's been used before. I'll give you an example.

In the late 60s when the war broke out with a NATO country, although at that time I don't think they were NATO, it was Turkey versus Greece on the island of Cyprus, all the coalition of the United Nations sent boots on the ground and I think they're still there. And they have been keeping the peace on that line across that island for decades. And it worked.

There's no wars in Cyprus anymore and the Turks and the Greeks live together and then cooperate --

BOLDUAN: Is that what it's going to take, Kevin? It's going to take boots on the ground for an undetermined, undefined, indefinite period of time in order to project the Strait of Hormuz.

O'LEARY: Yes, except it's not one country. The United Nations funds that peacekeeping effort. I mean, this is, think about it this way. Give me one country, even North Korea, that can live without oil. It's a unique situation. It's a unique commodity.

Everybody has a stake in this. And lately by attacking its own neighbors, Iran is, I mean, I can't believe what they did in the UAE. I've got a lot of staff over there. I talk to them every eight hours. It's still raining drones over there, most of them getting shot down. But our own office, the side of the wall, the ADGM got hit by debris, so we're not finished there yet. And that they haven't done much damage in terms of oil production, but they're not making any friends in the region.

So, when you pass the hat to these oil producing nations and say, hey, it's 2 billion a month and I'm guessing that number, I don't care if it's 4 billion a month, whatever it costs, it's worth it in the context of a global economy for a commodity that's used in every single sector needs this commodity and something else to think about. And I know it's on a lot of investors' minds that have put money to work in alternative energy. It didn't work.

We spent billions of dollars on wind and solar as an insurance policy for exactly times like this does not work. We need oil. Unfortunately, whether you like it or you don't, and this is proof positive.

So going forward, I think you're going to see very pro hydrocarbon policy all around the world because of this event. And wind and solar have no problem with it, but governments are going to stop subsidizing it because it just doesn't work.

BOLDUAN: Well, there's a lot to be seen in that regard, for sure. But to this point, one thing that is roundly agreed upon is the Strait of Hormuz needs to be reopened. How long that's going to take to do and when that can be pulled off, that is now a question of policy and politics for sure, for the administration. Kevin, thank you for coming in. It's good to see you. Thank you.

[20:25:08]

O'LEARY: Thank you, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Ahead for us, two terror attacks here at home and even more abroad this week. Is the Department of Homeland Security prepared to handle the threat of so-called sleeper cells? That conversation is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLDUAN: Tonight, we are learning more about the terror suspect who drove his car straight into Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan on Thursday. 41-year-old Ayman Mohamad Ghazali was born in Lebanon, came to the US on a visa as the spouse of a U.S. citizen. He became a naturalized citizen in 2016.

[20:30:02]

Law enforcement officials now tell CNN that he did appear in federal government databases as having connections to the way they put it is to known or suspected terrorists connected to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Suspected or known members of the group were also found in his phone contacts. Two of his brothers were killed earlier this week in an Israeli airstrike. But then of course, as we know, he's suspected of carrying out this horrible terror attack then on Temple Israel in Michigan. Let's talk about what this all means.

Joining me now is Frank Figliuzzi. He's the former assistant director of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division. Thanks for coming in, Frank.

This man had no real criminal record, if you will, or registered weapons. But we now learn he was in government databases for possible connections to Hezbollah. What do you take from that in terms of how closely he was trying to tracked or was not?

FRANK FIGLIUZZI, FMR. ASSISTANT DIR., FBI COUNTERINTELLIGENCE DIVISION: The first takeaway I had from both attacks this week, the one at Old Dominion University and who was by the way, a convicted terrorist, the suspect there and then at the synagogue in West Bloomfield is this is an illustration of how incredibly challenging this time is for counterterrorism professionals. By that I mean how many more of those kinds of people are in database, have had even convictions, have been able to get their hands on a weapon, have had a loved one killed in Lebanon or Iran or somewhere else in connection with this?

As you begin to get your head around that, and that's exactly what the intelligence community is trying to do right now, you realize that we're going to move from a usual strategy of playing man to man defense, which is a luxury. You have a limited threat. You can surveil them. You can go up on court ordered wiretaps. You can knock on doors. And now we're going to have to go to a zone defense and the zone defense will have holes in it.

It's got to be all hands-on deck. And all agencies, DHS, FBI, CIA, all of those people working together to try to stop the next act of violence.

BOLDUAN: When it -- when you talk about the next act of violence, we did hear the President talking quite a bit this week about monitoring possible Iranian sleeper cells in the United States. How real is the sleeper cell threat, Frank?

FIGLIUZZI: So traditionally with my 25 years in the FBI, we've not seen the kind of presence of actual bomb throwing operators that merited lots and lots of investigative resources. So, couriers, financiers and messengers. Yes.

The question mark right now is, did the law enforcement community, the FBI, the DHS, take their eyes off that Ball because they weren't getting return on investment investigatively. And now do they really have a handle on who's here? If anybody tells you they know exactly whether or not there are cells here, whether or not you know how many there are, where they're pulling your leg, because I don't think we know.

BOLDUAN: You have also been talking about how you fear the attacks that we saw in the last week will not be the last. With that terrifying idea in mind, what -- what are -- what are Americans to do? I mean, part of terrorism is striking fear in people. So, they stop living, essentially stop going about their daily lives.

But what would you say is the appropriate amount and what kind of measures Americans should be taking to protect themselves or take it another step, especially religious institutions like Jewish institutions should be taking even further steps they should be taking now.

FIGLIUZZI: Right. So, first, any a part of any good counterterrorism strategy is also anti-terrorism strategy. And that goes to the targets that we saw this week. And that means hardening, softer targets.

Now, the Jewish community has been extremely good at this and sadly experienced at it. And we saw it at work in West Bloomfield. That needs to happen even more and in concert with law enforcement, lots of drills, active shooter drills and all of that. With regard to what the average citizen can do, the good news is the we're certainly not at the point where people should be rethinking public events or don't go out or don't go here or there. But rather the biggest threat of all, Kate, is that lone actor.

And that's where the public comes in. You remember after 9/11, if you see something, say something. If you suspect something, if your gut is telling you this person is acting strangely, I believe this is a threat. You've got to alert law enforcement because you really are the first line of defense.

BOLDUAN: Yes. Frank, it's good to see you. Thank you so much for coming in. FIGLIUZZI: Thank you.

BOLDUAN: Still ahead for U.S. defense Secretary Pete Hegseth criticizing media coverage of the war, suggesting that how the press is handling it is. Well, the press is being unpatriotic. Going to get reaction tonight from one outspoken veteran of the war in Iraq. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:39:38]

BOLDUAN: One constant, consistent message coming from the Trump administration since this war began was that Iran's military is being demolished, reduced to basically nothing. You can hear it in the language from the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth. You can see it in the memes being pushed from the White House.

CNN's Tom Foreman reports. It's part war effort, part PR campaign.

[20:40:01]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PETE HEGSETH, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: America is winning decisively, devastatingly, and without mercy.

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voiceover): Ever since the first fighter launched.

HEGSETH: With brutal efficiency, total air dominance, and an unbreakable will to accomplish the president's objectives.

FOREMAN (voiceover): And the first missile landed.

HEGSETH: You act decisively in chaos.

FOREMAN (voiceover): Pete Hegseth has been speaking unlike any other secretary of defense ever.

HEGSETH: Death, destruction from the sky all day long.

FOREMAN (voiceover): Gone are the solemn, statesmanlike updates on warfare the Pentagon has long preferred. In their place, Hegseth has picked up the tone long established by the commander in chief. He died like a dog.

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: He died like a coward.

FOREMAN (voiceover): Blasting the Iranian regime.

HEGSETH: For 47 years, these barbaric savages in the Iranian regime have murdered our brothers in arms. My guys, your guys.

FOREMAN (voiceover): Ridiculing their attempts to stand up to the dual military powers of the United States and Israel. HEGSETH: The combination is sheer destruction for our radical Islamist

Iranian adversaries. They are toast and they know it. Or at least soon enough, they will know it.

FOREMAN (voiceover): And even as he mocks the faith of Iranian foes and his department post online about showing them no mercy, Hegseth is blurring the line between his private Christian beliefs and his secular public duties.

HEGSETH: May the Lord grant unyielding strength and refuge to our warriors, unbreakable protection to them in our homeland, and total victory over those who seek to harm them.

FOREMAN (voiceover): Like Hegseth, the White House too, has taken a peculiar tack to spur support for the war, turning bomb blast into a highlight reel on X set to the song "Here Comes the Boom". Snagging scenes from the video game Grand Theft Auto to underscore other explosive moments.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Here we go again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can't conceive of what I'm capable of.

FOREMAN (voiceover): And even intercutting scenes from factual battle with clips from fictional movies and TV shows, all with the clear intent of selling the public on the proposition that everything is going as planned.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Here it comes. Flawless victory.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOREMAN: Of course, this fight has not been flawless for American troops. Some have died, others have been wounded, and it is not at all clear how long they are going to have to stay in the battle, even as what looks an awful lot like a marketing campaign marches on. Tom Foreman, CNN, Washington.

BOLDUAN: Tom, thank you so much for that. And joining me right now to talk more about this is Paul Rieckhoff, an Iraq war veteran, founder and CEO of the Independent Veterans of America, and host of Independent Americans Podcast. It's good to see you.

PAUL RIECKHOFF, FOUNDER AND CEO, INDEPENDENT VETERANS OF AMERICA: Good to see you again.

BOLDUAN: We have --

RIECKHOFF: Here we are again.

BOLDUAN: We were saying this in the break. We have been through this conversation many times before, but this is slightly different. It feels this time, every conflict, every war comes with message management from the administration and the commander in chief that is in charge of the military. I've talked many times with David Petraeus just about the challenges of message management during the Iraq war and during what he was -- what he -- when he -- what he was trying to pull up. What do you think of this messaging?

RIECKHOFF: This is something very different. This is actually strategic. Pete says he's got a lot of wars underway right now, but one that he never takes his eye off is the war on the press. He continuously attacks the free press. He attacks, I would argue, free speech. He attacks CNN. He attacks anyone who opposes them. He's even attacking the crazy liberal rag Stars and Stripes, right?

Stars and Stripes, the military newspaper.

BOLDUAN: I hope you sense of sarcasm.

RIECKHOFF: Yes, that sarcasm. Okay, but -- but this is what' in his line of fire, because this is strategic. They want to consolidate the message. They want to control the image. They want to basically create a propaganda machine that consolidates what they want to say and how they want to say it. That's why they've removed the Pentagon press corps and replaced them with loyalists.

This is not just a glitch. It is his personality. He is a culture warrior, I think, by design, but this is a strategy to make sure that they control the message and they control the truth.

BOLDUAN: It's so -- if you watch the briefings and they've been happening, they haven't been happening during my show, and I'm obviously watching them very closely. It is so different what you see and hear from Pete Hegseth and what you see and hear from General Dan Caine.

RIECKHOFF: Yes.

BOLDUAN: And it is what I see it as is a study of the Joint Chiefs Chairman is not opposed to taking hard questions. He'll answer what he's going to answer and he won't answer what he won't. And it is very different when the Defense Secretary is taking hard questions, important questions, probing questions about the -- what America is involved in. And I don't -- you might not like it, but do you think it's working?

[20:45:07]

RIECKHOFF: No. I mean, I don't like it and I don't think it's working. I think it's unprofessional. I think it's inappropriate. I think it's beneath the office. I think it's really nasty.

It's what he's there to do. It's what Trump wants him to do. But I also think it goes deeper, Kate. I think it's making us less safe. His language is ticking off people around the world. These videos are infuriating people around the world and it's making more people hate us.

It's making our allies less likely to stand with us. And every time he takes that approach, every time they post one of these absolutely ridiculous slop war videos, they're making every single service member serving around the world less safe. A Marine standing outside an embassy anywhere in the world right now.

The local nationals do not like that Marine a little bit -- a little bit more because of these videos. They view all Americans now through this prism. And our entire national and global stock is dropping because of the way they're acting.

BOLDUAN: I want to play for you what now, Former Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene had to say just about the war effort and about the Trump administration's handling of it. Let me play this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE, (R) FMR. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: I can understand they're in a difficult position. They serve at the pleasure of President Trump. And so, what I would imagine that's a difficult spot to speak out. But they need to speak out. I want them to speak out. We need them to speak out.

We need people in the administration that we know disagree with it because of their voices and the words they spoke previously. But we do. We need to hear from them, and I hope we will soon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: Who she's specifically talking about is Vice President JD Vance and DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. And I mean, especially Tulsi Gabbard. This is 1,000 percent against what she stands for. But they have been silent publicly. But is it their place to speak out?

RIECKHOFF: I think it is. I'm in the -- I'm in the unusual position of agreeing with Marjorie Taylor Greene, but I think she's right because 70 percent or so of this country does not support this war. They don't want boots on the ground. They don't want continued forever wars. They don't want war with potentially Cuba and other places that Trump has talked about striking.

And Tulsi Gabbard in particular, served in Congress. I've known Tulsi Gabbard personally and professionally for a long time. And she ran specifically a no regime change words. You could pull hundreds of videos of Tulsi Gabbard saying she's a veteran who will stand in for veterans.

BOLDUAN: But we don't know the conversations that are going on --

RIECKHOFF: Right.

BOLDUAN: -- internally behind the scenes in The Situation Room and elsewhere.

RIECKHOFF: True.

BOLDUAN: But at the end of the day, it's President Trump's call.

RIECKHOFF: Well, and this is a breaking point, right? I mean, American sons and daughters are dying. Caskets are coming home. Now is a time to speak out. If you were ever going to speak out publicly and resign, you know, find ways to find holes to speak out, this is the moment. Because Americans do not want this. They don't want more men and women coming home in caskets. And they're looking for leaders who will have the courage. And too many of them, frankly, are just sellouts.

BOLDUAN: There's a lot of silence, though, and what is becoming a growing, expanding war effort. There's no way around it when you see what targets that are being hit and that Iran says that it is nowhere close to backing down. So, it's good to see you.

RIECKHOFF: Good to see you.

BOLDUAN: Thank you for coming in.

RIECKHOFF: Any time.

BOLDUAN: Really appreciate it. All right, ahead for us, very different but also happening right now, who will take home the awards at Hollywood's biggest night? People are betting big on Oscars -- on the Oscars prediction markets. Harry Enten is going to be telling us who the public thinks has a shot.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:53:11]

BOLDUAN: So do you have your bets ready? And no, I am not talking about your fave sporting event. I'm talking about the Oscars. We are on the eve of that big night.

More than $120 million has been wagered on the Academy Awards. Yes, you can bet on every category from best picture to best film editing. But there is one race that is seeing a last-minute momentum shift. CNN's Harry Enten is all over it. Harry.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Hey, Kate, look, the drama over. Who will in fact win the best actor award at the Oscars. It's going right down to the final moments with the chief competitors being Timothee Chalamet and of course, Michael B. Jordan. And I will note at this particular time that Harry J. Enten is a big fan of both ballet and the opera. Anyway, apropos of nothing, let's take a look at some stats that favor each of the different candidates.

Look here, Critics Choice for best actor. Timothee Chalamet won it this year. That is very good news for him because you go back through history, this century, 17 times, the person, the actor that won the Critics Choice Award for best actor went on to then win the Oscar for best actor. But then there's some bad news for Timothee Chalamet and very good news for Michael B. Jordan.

Why? Take a look at the actor awards. Take a look at that. The person who won best actor this year was Michael B. Jordan. And 18 times this century, that person then went on to win the Oscar for best Actor. And indeed, Michael B. Jordan has been gaining momentum over this Oscar race. As we head in the final moments. Take a look here. Okay, if you go back a little less than a month ago

on February 21, look at the cashier prediction market odds for best actor. Timothee Chalamet was way out ahead at 78 percent. Michael B. Jordan was just at 8 percent. Then you jump ahead to March 5th after Michael B. Jordan, in fact won the actor award for best actor. Look at this. His chances went way up. We're talking about a 36 percent chance. Timothee Chalamet down at 55 percent.

And then of course, all of the drama, all the noise about Timothee Chalamet and his comments about opera and the ballet.

[20:55:05]

Look at this. Down he goes. His chances now just 34 percent. Michael B. Jordan is the favorite at this point, but it's still a very close race. He's at a 56 percent chance to in fact win the Oscar for best actor. I'm not really quite sure who I want to win this race, Kate, because the truth is I like both Sinners and Marty Supreme.

So, at the end of the day, I guess it's pick or choose. But I don't think a lot of fans of the ballet are going to be going for Timothee Chalamet. Kate, back to you.

BOLDUAN: We can get into that. We can get into that another time. Thanks, Har.

And do not miss it. Tomorrow, CNN and Variety are live on the red carpet. It all starts at 4:00 p.m. on TBS or you can watch on the CNN app.

I'm going to be right back with another hour of CNN Newsroom right after a short break. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)